KC Royals Baseball Academy

[captain_napalm]

I was checking out today's ATM reports and came across THT's "Franchises at Birth: The Royals and the Brewers (Part Two: 1971-1974)"

The article makes a passing reference to the old Baseball Academy (which, IIRC was shut down in the early 90's)

A quick search on the net turned up this Dan Agonistes Article (http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2004/07/sabermetrics-and-kansas-city-royals.html).

Even though it may have been a failure on some levels, it was a success on others (conclusion based on the article; I'm too young to remember it). So why haven't other teams adapted or copied the idea? With all the money being thrown around nowadays, it seems that running an academy could cost the same amount as a first round draft pick, maybe cheaper. And it could pay off in the long run, as you'd find guys that would otherwise slip under the radar.

I am suprised more teams haven't done, or even attempted this.

[Crash Course]

Syd Thrift, IIRC, talked a lot about it in his book.

If they ever do away with the GCL and AZL (sic?) like they tried this winter, you may see more of these pop-up.

But, part of the problem, again, IIRC was that they ended up with every HS RB in the nation - because players were picked on speed, balance, etc.

And, for every Frank White you get, there were too many rejects and the ROI was not there.

[captain_napalm]

But the standards can be "tweaked" to include more types of players, no? At least with baseball, you can survive in the game if you're not a 5 tool player, if you have a skill that you do pretty well. If you can hit, a team will always find a position for you. If you can pitch, a team will find a place for you on the roster.

[KCBOOMER]

The idea behind the academy was to take fine athletes without much baseball background and see what you could turn. The cost of the academy was about $1M a year which was deemed too expensive. If you could still run one for that amount you would "only" have to produce a Frank White every ten years to be well ahead of the game.

To get in to the academy you did have to have footspeed because there is no way to teach that, but you had to have some baseball skills, so the running back analogy is incorrect. However, "pointguard" might not be a bad reference.

[captain_napalm]

The idea behind the academy was to take fine athletes without much baseball background and see what you could turn. The cost of the academy was about $1M a year which was deemed too expensive. If you could still run one for that amount you would "only" have to produce a Frank White every ten years to be well ahead of the game.

Interesting. Cost could be the reason why an organization like the Dodgers has an academy in the DR.

I would think that even without footspeed you could still focus on other aspects of a player's game. If a kid could put up slugger numbers, I wouldn't cast him aside because he couldn't run (now has me thinking about the impact power has on the game; could teams like the Cardinals and Royals of yesteryear be able to compete today?).

So instead of focusing on footspeed as a criteria of eligibility, focus on baseball skills. I guess instead of doing that, teams have tryout camps every so often...